• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

hardware video acceleration and browers acceleration question

Associate
Joined
2 Aug 2004
Posts
929
im not really a big gamer, so the exact this ati card is 2 fps better than this nvidia for the same price or whatever im not so fussed about.

the things i do more are playback HD video and use a browser. i know a long time ago nvidia cards offered slightly better video quality (at the expense of eating more gpu cycles and power) that equivalent ati ones. is that still tho case or are they both the same now?

also is either better for general browser acceleration, that would really sway me as i mroe or less live in a browser at times.
 
Nope, not really, what system do you have or what system are you planning on getting.

AMD's biggest advantage over Nvidia or Intel, is APU's, Nvidia because they don't do them so an AMD APU is WAY cheaper and lower power than an AMD or Intel cpu + nvidia gpu. better than Intel apu's because they are cheaper, have much stronger graphics and generally better video quality.

If you were building a system from scratch and have no interest in discrete gpu levels of performance then an APU is likely to offer you the best value build and offer good quality hd accelerated playback.

If you have to update an old system with a gpu, I'd find the cheapest low end card you can get from either company. Cost is the only consideration realistically there.

If you were buying new and could wait, I would recommend waiting for Kaveri then getting the cheapest/lowest power chip they do(launches Jan 14th), it will offer better bang for buck, more power improvements, etc. Though richland's are pretty damn good if it was urgent.

I genuinely don't know what the cheapest Intel chip is these days but I suspect it's significantly more expensive than the cheapest richland chips.

Quality wise, there isn't much in it, you might want to check with Intel as they did have a 24fps video issue a while back you would think they fixed it but I'm not 100% sure on that.

EDIT:- be a tad careful on older low end chips, there was at one time an issue with the very lowest cards and having too few shaders to accelerate video, so say an 80 shader chip might accelerate 720p but might struggle at 1080p, while a say 240 shader card was fine for 1080p. The newest gen low end has almost disappeared, so just be a tad careful that if you buy something like a 5350(couple generation old AMD lowest end) or the Nvidia equivalent, it might not give suitable acceleration to 1080p or higher content.
I think the older low end cards also could have some issues with say 1080p at 60hz, for mostly things like recorded camera/phone video footage, I'm also not sure how they'd do in the future with 4k video if that is something to take into consideration.
 
Last edited:
oh currently planning putting a new system together.

a new gpu id expect will happen soon after and id think arround £100ish or so, maybe go £150. its just that what ive looked at both companies seem to offer very similar benchmark scores. howovor the bits id expect ill use more often than gaming ie hardware video acceleration and browser acceleration never seem to get a mention.

so if thre was a marked difference it would help sway me to one brand over the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom